Are you sure?
5'8" @ 161 pounds ... hmm ... unusual proportion ...
https://www.instagram.com/p/BhAsftxg15_ ... kaddictscc
But anyway, good results.
Moderator: Moderator Team
Are you sure?
Agreed.. I know its not the norm, but keep in mind they don't actually call it Merckx, they call it Non-TT. Merckx implies that you're using equipment that Eddy Merckx would have used. The rules committee for our local series views the Non-TT class as the entry point into Time Trial racing, because it allows people to come out and give it a try on their road bike. I guess at some point (before I was involved in the series) there were stricter rules, but they were finding them to be more of a hinderance to getting people involved because people were coming out to give it a try and many of them already had wheels upgrades to something like a 303 or 404 etc. In addition to the wheels, they were finding it difficult to draw a line in terms of frames as aero road frames became more popular. They weiged the options of setting the rules strict, no aero road frames, no aero wheels, etc and realized that would just prevent people from trying out the sport. The rule says the wheel must be spoked. No clip ons, No disc wheel, no tri-spoke. The first season I raced, the Non-TT class was open cat. At some events thought we'd have 40+ riders in the field and the speed range between te fastest and slowest was HUGE. The rules committee broke it into 2 classes Non-TT A 1/2/3 and Non-TT B 4/5. Again the thinking was that splitting the class would interset more people to come try the sport because beginners wouldn't be in the same field as guys that were Cat 1/2/3. I'm not involved with the rules committe at all, but I've heard there's been some talk that for next year, they may leave the Non-TT A with the looser aero rules, but set up the Non-TT B class with some stricter rules, i.e. wheels <50mm, no TT helmets, etc.
I think the course requirements would be the hardest for me ot nail down here... hard to find a solid stretch of road with minimal traffic interference here in NJ. That rt. 29 stretch of road is greta becaus eit runs along the Delaware river and has little to no access on one side. Why did you spend so much time doing extensive aero testing, looking at your USA cycling results page it doesn't look like you've ever even done a TT. Seems like a lot of wasted effort.RyanH wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 5:03 pmHere's the thread:
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... p?t=139992
- Changes in temp can affect lap times (laps were roughly 7 min) by up to 10s or so. Environment variables is significant and without using the full Chung Method protocol, recording bariometric pressure, dew point, temp and altitude, trying to compare two efforts even at the same watts is fraught with problems.
- Precision and consistency of recording devices is essential. I recommend the GSC-10 because I know how it works, one magnet click per revolution. I don't know how the hub ones work as it might be an accelerometer which is not going to be accurate enough.
- Choose your course wisely. Find a course with minimal wind, little to no traffic interference and no need to brake or coast. Coasting will mess up your data since your PM will still read power for a few seconds. You want to pedal the entire time.
- Constant wattage isn't necessary. You can actually do more analysis by varing the wattage as it lets you "tease out" Crr.
- Don't test something once and move on. My goal was a minimum sample size of 5 and to see if that was consistent enough with itself. This right here will tell you if a Stages is good enough or not. When I started, I tried to use GPS and CdA estimates were fluctuating 10% or so for the same equipment and position. My guess is that you'll see something similar with the Stages. Read this for more on why I question anything provided by a Stages: https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ ... 043-102945 (you seem to be taking training seriously and at this point, you're probably seeking small improvements now, so why use a device where you're not 100% sure that PR you set was due to the Stages or you?). Anyway, Chung method testing is a good way to test power meters too.
- It may be useful to get a weather reading device like a Kestrel. I got one but only used it for a week or so as I found the nearest weather station read nearly the same. But, I also identified that the other close station was 5-10* higher because it was on top of the valley and the Rose Bowl was at the bottom so there would be big differences in temp even though we're only talking like 75 feet of elevation diff.
This. Who gives a F.Grill wrote:What on earth is wrong with y'all's? I can't believe this has been essentially turned into a fat-shaming thread.
indeed... the average power and speed is good in my eyes so
so what do you think is the cause of the increased speed between the two front wheels? On the surface, I think most peple would assume that the 808 is faster from an aerodynamic standpoint, being the deeper wheel. The atest RR data though says that high performance clincher tires are faster than tubular an the Turbo Cotton is one of the fastest? What tire is on the 808? OR, do you think its smiply that the 6.7 front is still better than the 808, even though it is shallower? Did you guys both run normal power numbers compared to what you might normally run on this course?
I've got Schwalbe Ironman 22mm (one of the first batches, so on paper it should've had latex inside) tub on the Zipp, so nothing catastrophic in terms of rolling resistance, but the facts vs Turbo Cotton look to be there. A month ago, we did the same course with similar setups (except the front wheel swap), I was 15 sec slower, he - 14 sec faster. Watts for me were the same average although month ago my split was way more equal, this time I pushed +11 on the first half of the course and then fell dead -11 after the turnaround . For him maybe a couple less, but he pushes around 350 on this course with CdA in the 0.2-0.21 ballpark. The conditions were slightly faster this time.CrankAddictsRich wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:48 pmso what do you think is the cause of the increased speed between the two front wheels? On the surface, I think most peple would assume that the 808 is faster from an aerodynamic standpoint, being the deeper wheel. The atest RR data though says that high performance clincher tires are faster than tubular an the Turbo Cotton is one of the fastest? What tire is on the 808? OR, do you think its smiply that the 6.7 front is still better than the 808, even though it is shallower? Did you guys both run normal power numbers compared to what you might normally run on this course?